The Managing Director ,The A.P State seeds Development,Corp Ltd., HYderabad,Office No.5-10-193 The District Manager ,The A.P State Seeds Development ,Corpn Ltd., Gandichowk,Khammam The District Co-Operative Marketing Society ,Mudigonda ,Khammam Dist
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 10th day of August, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., L.L.B. - President, 2. Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha B.Sc. B.L. - Member 3. Sri R.Kiran Kumar, B.Sc. L.L.B - Member C.C.No.127/2009 Between: . Samineni Shambaiah, s/o.Venkaiah, occu:Agrl., r/o.Chirumarri village, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District. Complainant and 1. The Managing Director, The A.P.State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad, office No.5-10-193, Haka Bhavan, Hyderabad. 2. The District Manager, The A.P.State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., Gandhi Chowk, Khammam. 3. The District Cooperative Marketing Society, Mudigonda, Khammam District. Opposite parties This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing in the presence of Sri.B.Tirumala Rao, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.A.Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 and 2; Notice of opposite party No.3 served and called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:- O R D E R (Per Sri Vijay Kumar, President) This complaint is filed under section 12-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is a resident of Chirumarri village, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District. The complainant is an agriculturist, having land measuring Ac.8-00 gts. in Sy.No62/AA, 63/AA2, 63/AA3/1, 312/U, 62/AA3, 62/A situated at Chirumarri revenue village, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District. The complainant used to raise paddy crops in his agricultural land. Having attracted with the publicity of opposite parties with regard to the paddy seeds, had purchased the paddy seeds i.e. BPT 5204 seeds weighing 150 kgs. worth Rs.2,070/-, the opposite parties issued a receipt bearing No.843168, dt.26-6-2009. The complainant sowed the seeds in his field and provided sufficient water and taken all measures for good yielding, but to his surprise, there is no yielding in the crop and there is no growth in the plants. Due to the defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties, the complainant suffered huge loss. The cost of cultivation for one acre of paddy up to panicle initiation stage i.e. at maturity stage is Rs.11,100/- and also spent an amount of Rs.11,100/- per acre towards seeds, fertilizers and pesticides, ploughing charges and coolies, etc.,. Due to the defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties, the complainant sustained loss of Rs.88,800/- in total for which the opposite parties are liable. The complainant suffered untold mental agony due to the loss of the crop. The complainant approached Mandal Agricultural Officer and informed about the defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties and the agricultural officer visited the field and stated that due to defective seeds there is no yielding and he assessed the loss and issued report. The complainant also informed to the opposite party No.1 stating that there is no yielding in the crop, but the opposite parties did not respond properly. Hence, this complaint. 2. Apart from the complaint, the complainant filed an affidavit, reiterating the contents of the complaint. 3. On receipt of the notice, opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed counter. In the counter, all averments of the complaint are denied in toto. It is further contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, as the complainant cannot be regarded as consumer, but the opposite parties admitted that the complainant purchased paddy seeds of paddy BPT 5204, from the opposite party No.3 on 26-6-2009, weighing 150 kgs., worth of Rs.2,070/- and also admitted that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 issued cash bill No.843168. Except this, all the other averments of the complaint are denied in toto. It is further contended that the Mandal Agricultural Officer, who visited the fields, collected samples, did not inform the same to the opposite parties, for their attendance in the field. The said agricultural officer is not having any right to inspect the field. The agricultural officer did not test soil condition of the field and did not take care to observe that the complainant followed the methods at the time of sowing and raising the crop. It is further contended that the opposite party No.3 sold 270 quintals of paddy seeds in Mudigonda Mandal, nowhere any complaint is made except this complaint. The opposite parties selling the seeds with subsidy and the said seeds have come to the market after thoroughly verifying and scanning the seeds for its germination and after certifying the ISI department only. The complainant did not make Gangotri seeds and Padmavathi seeds company party to the above proceedings. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties. It is further contended that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.11,100/- per acre for cultivation towards seeds costs, wages of the Labur for sowing, plugging costs, wages of labour, for fertilizers and pesticides are absolutely false and baseless. It is further contended that the complainant raised paddy crop for commercial purpose so as to sell the produce of profit, but not for domestic use or consumption. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer as per the definition of the term consumer defined under section 2(1)(d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further contended that the complainant failed to file any scientific analysis report as contemplated under section 13(1)(c)of the consumer protection Act. The seeds should be sent for analysis. The documents filed by the complainant are fabricated and created for the purpose of filing the complaint. The report of Agricultural officer did not contain the details of inspection and about the defects she had noticed in the crop. It is not the scientific analysis. The crop can fall due to various reasons i.e., poor agriculture practice followed by the complainant and poor soil condition, inadequate rainfall or poor quality of fertilizers and pesticides and failure to take proper steps for irrigation. It is further contended that the seeds are genetically procured and thoroughly tested in the laboratories before releasing into the market. The complainant never informed the opposite parties about the condition of the crop nor made any request to send any person for personal inspection. The opposite parties did not receive any complaint from anywhere. There is no complaint from anywhere of the District, except from the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint. 4. On behalf of the complainant, the following documents have filed and marked as Exs.A.1 to A.3. Ex.A.1 is the Photocopy of cash bill No.843168, dt.26-6-2009, Ex.A.2 is the representation to the Mandal Agricutural officer, Mudigonda and Ex.A.3 is the Report of Mandal Agricultural officer, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District. 5. On behalf of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2, a statement showing the paddy BPT 5204 seeds arrivals from Karimnagar/Warangal District is filed and marked as Ex.B.1. 6. On behalf of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2, written arguments submitted. Heard the counsel for complainant. Perused the oral and documentary evidence. Upon which the point that arose for consideration is, 1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the claim sought in the complaint? 2. To what relief? Point No.1: The undisputed fact of the case that the complainant purchased BPT 5204 seeds from the opposite party No.3 and paid cash. On this aspect of the case is concerned, the complainant refers to Ex.A.1, cash receipt issued by the opposite party No.3. The case of the complainant is that having purchased the seeds from opposite party No.3, sowed the seeds in his field and provided sufficient water and taken all measures for good yielding. Inspite of making all efforts, there is no yield in the crop and there is no growth in the plants. On this aspect of the case is concerned, the complainant refers to Ex.A.2, representation made to the Mandal Agricultural officer, Mudigonda. After making representation, the Mandal Agricultural officer visited the fields of the complainant and observed that paddy upto flowering and panicle initiation stage, the cost incurred is about Rs.11,100/- x Ac.8.00, which comes to Rs.88,800/-, 50% loss occurred; actual loss incurred is Rs.44,400/-. This loss incurred by the complainant due to the seed fault, irregular flowering and maturity and she has given a report, which is marked as Ex.A.3. In the present case, the Agricultural Development Officer has specifically reported that she had visited the fields of complainant and collected the boundaries of the field and survey number and she has specifically given the identity of the land of the complainant. So far as the testing of the seeds in the laboratory is concerned, the seed purchased by the complainant was already sown and no part of it was available with the complainant. Therefore, the seed could not be sent to the seed testing laboratory for obtaining expert opinion. There cannot be any dispute on the question of fact and law that the onus of proof lies with the farmers to prove their case. This could have been done either by getting the seed tested from a seed testing laboratory or by obtaining an expert opinion or any Agricultural Scientist or qualified Agricultural Officer. In this case the crop has been tested by Mandal Agricultural Officer, who is an expert, in analyzing the crop position. With regard to the objection raised by the opposite parties that it is only under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the remedy lies for the farmer to be compensated for defective seeds. As regards the section 13(1)(c) is concerned, it became unimplementable, since the farmer has sown the entire seed purchased from opposite party. Therefore, the alternate method is report of Mandal Agricultural Officer, who inspected fields. The farmer being a innocent is not expected to conserve certain portion of seed, to get it tested to meet the requirement under section 13(1)(c). Therefore, the complainant could not be expected to retain any part of seed to get it tested in case of unforeseen exigency. The report of Mandal Agricultural Officer is crucial and important to decide whether the seed supplied by the opposite party No.3 is of good quality or defective. In the present case the Mandal Agricultural Officer has specifically reported that she has visited the fields and verified the crop position and given detailed report. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant has substantially proved that he purchased B.P.T. 5204 seed from opposite party No.3 and paid cash Rs.2,070/- and sowed the same in his land and taken all measures for good yielding. But there is no yielding in the crop and there is no growth in the plant. On that he made the complaint to the Mandal Agricultural Officer, who visited the fields of the complainant and observed that paddy paddy upto flowering and panicle initiation stage and due to the seed fault, irregular flowering and maturity, the farmer has incurred loss. As per her report, the total extent of land cultivated by the complainant is Ac.8.00, and the complainant incurred loss for Rs.11,100/- per acre which comes to Rs.88,800/-, she deducted 50% of loss and opined that actual loss incurred by the complainant is Rs.44,400/-. In view of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the complaint is fit to be allowed in part. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.44,400/- being the loss incurred by the complainant, due to the defective seeds supplied by them together with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of Mandal Agricultural Officer Report i.e. 5-11-2009 till the date of deposit. Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 10th day of August, 2010. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant: - None- Witnesses examined for opposite parties: -None- Exhibits marked for complainant: Ex.A.1 - Photocopy of cash bill No.843168, dt.26-6-2009 Ex.A.2 Representation to the Mandal Agricutural officer, Mudigonda. Ex.A.3 - Report of Mandal Agricultural officer, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District Exhibits marked for opposite parties: Ex.B.1 - Statement showing the paddy BPT 5204 seeds arrivals from Karimnagar/Warangal District PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
